Understand Men. Find Love.

Menu

Are Feminists Keeping The Patriarchy Alive?

I read and largely enjoyed Hanna Rosin’s book, “The End of Men” last year. I didn’t quite agree with her conclusions that women were going to entirely surpass men in all manner of achievement, but I felt that she gave a reasonably fair and balanced assessment of our current gender situation. Things have changed. Women are equal, equally educated, equally ambitious, and that leaves many people – especially in the world of dating – a little off balance.

It’s not that sexists are dead. But sexism as an institution is embarrassing, on the wane, and illegal in the workplace.

It’s an interesting debate, to be sure, but I think the safest conclusion we can all draw is that it’s a messy new world where gender roles are being blurred and redefined, and that the most successful relationships will result when a man and a woman can get on the same page. Traditional marriage with the breadwinner man and the stay-at-home wife is not better or worse, per se. It’s just a matter of finding a partner who is the right fit for you.

I find that stance to be relatively non controversial, which is why I was surprised to hear about the vitriol from Rosin’s latest Slate piece about “The End of Men”. In it, she asserts that “the patriarchy” – the nameless, faceless, male conspiracy designed to keep women down – is all but dead. And that really rankles some feminists whose entire livelihood depends on fighting against the patriarchy.

Says Rosin, “Soon after the 2012 election, the New York Times published as its lead op-ed a study by two academics showing that women would not truly reach parity or be in a position to pass women-friendly policies until they controlled half of all congressional seats. This seems true enough, if a little obvious. But it entirely missed the revolutionary shift the moment marked. There was a group marginalized in the election: white men. They voted en masse for Mitt Romney, and lost. This bean counting and monitoring—an outdated compulsion to keep your guard up, because sexism lurks everywhere—has found new life online, where feminist websites (including our own) and the Twitter police are always on the lookout for the next slight.”

This echoes my own perception as well. It’s not that sexists are dead. But sexism as an institution is embarrassing, on the wane, and illegal in the workplace. Same with racism. It may linger in subconscious attitudes and latent behavior, but full-out racism will pretty much disqualify you from holding down any job. Concurs Rosin:
“I understand that the big picture is not always reflected in women’s daily experience of life. Maybe a woman has an overbearing husband or a retrograde boss or just a lingering problem that has no name. But as a collective, it sometimes feels that women look too closely at the spot right in front of us. This is a moment, unprecedented in history—and also pretty confusing—when young women who work how they want and have sex how they want may also quilt and can fruits. When working-class women who quietly leave the only steady paycheck on the kitchen table every week may still believe that a man is the God-ordained head of the household. So I want to tell these women who are seeing only oppression: Look around.”

Comments:

1

Chance

I do believe many third-wave feminists would prefer that the patriarchy remain alive. However, since it’s no longer alive, they’ve been forced to either focus on perceived slights against women where it is highly debatable as to whether said slights even exist, or focus on issues that-if they were to achieve their desired outcome-would put men at a distinct disadvantage.

I don’t know why The Feminists wouldn’t be keeping “The Patriarchy” alive. They invented the thing in the first place. There is no such thing as “The Patriarchy.” Which is not to say there is no such thing as sexism. But “The Patriarchy” is now and always has been feminist bunk.

I think by “Patrichary” is meant the system where a woman’s fate was tied to that of her father, her husband and eventually her sons. Her lot in life is entirely dependent on the status of her father (as were her brothers) – the decision on who to marry was made entirely by her father or males in her extended family. Essentially women from high ranking and policitally powerful families were protected but restricted in what they could do and in exercising choice. So the “Patricharcy” is system whereby certain groups of people were protected and privileged – both men and women – in return for obedience and observation of obligations. Today we don’t have “Patriarchy” in the traditional sense but “Patrichary” run by government which ensures that certain classses of people are protected and privileged, but demanding nothing in return – hence the current blow-out in debt and slow, but sure social disintegration.

Ok, it won’t be by me, because I agree. “The Patriarchy” is a nice simplification intended to create a single, tangible enemy, and to tar men as a group with a single brush. “You all have benefitted from this Evil Patriarchy, so you’re all guilty”. It makes for good headlines, and easy baiting.

This looks like a BULL SHIT article from a rabid conservative website that wants to tar every liberal as a looney and blame liberals for ALL of our social ills. I couldn’t finish reading the article due to HUGE pop up ads that continuously blocked the entire page and slowed down my computer, but after reading about half the article I didn’t see anything about pending or proposed legislation to outlaw men looking at women. Just a bunch of cobbled together conclusions drawn from some “blog outrage” and some studies on the effects of men looking at women together. The main point of the article is that LIBERALS ARE EVIL. Perhaps the headline should have read “Conservatives want to give all liberals the death penalty”

I wouldn’t worry about this at all. This sounds like a fake article from a fake website.

Don’t these silly people know that the evil liberals are too busy right now fighting the “War on Christmas”? We MUST wait until January 2nd before we make staring at boobies illegal. And we’re going to shut down Hooters and The Tilted Kilt as well.

Now, please excuse me while I go poke baby Jesus in the eye.

3.1.3

TheForgottenOne

Ummmm…yeah. It’s from the DailyCaller which is a waste of conservative nut job space worse than The Drudge Report. Wouldn’t take anything from that garbage pit any more seriously than I would from the National Enquirer.

It’s interesting though that in the end the large majority of women will not be willing to settle with a man who is perceived to not be successful and most women would resent supporting men which is where we are headed. I’d say the “settling for less” issue is the biggest controversy in online dating but that is what has to logically happen once women are doing better than the men.

I”m over 60. I am the oldest surviving male amongst my relatives and I still haven’t been invited to a meeting of the Patriarchy. How do I join? Is it like the Freemasons? You are invited? Do I need to grow a beard? Should it be white?

The study on Objectifying, whatever that means, said that women scan other women in the same way as men do. Yeah right. And if you are male, women check out your height and clothing. Some people lose the contest and feel uncomfortable or don’t want that particular prize. This is going to change?

Peter 51 – 8 yes, women scan other women the way that men do. It’s called competition. Will it change? Yes, to the extent that I would not wish to have for a partner someone who looked and assessed me as if I were a prize heifer and would leave HIM alone. Everyone has to make their own value systems and if that means being single rather than having all the physical virtues that someone wants us to have, so be it.

I agree with Sparkling Emerald. Just look at all the bull about the “War on Christmas” and “Santa and Jesus Are White”, courtesy of Faux Noix. “Dr.” Laura blames feminists for all of society’s ills, though arguably she benefitted from women’s advances. Now she wants to go back to the 1950s, or even 1800s.
And these women railing against the Patriarchy all sound like caricatures. I am not one of these women, nor do I personally know anyone like this. Actually, I see far too many women who are Stepford Wives, but that is another topic.

Happy Clients

“You opened my eyes to the fact that my boyfriend left because he didn’t love me unconditionally.”

I am in such a better place today because of your insights and inspirational guidance. I was so stuck on getting him back, but now I realize that I don’t want him back! I deserve someone who will love me unconditionally, no matter what.

Ana C.

"I'm so glad I didn't give up, no one should ever give up. You have to kiss A LOT of toads to find your prince."

I knew I needed to in order to attract the love of my life. I had romantic dreams and the reality of the dating scene was a wake-up call… A man with answers about men! That is the "golden ticket"!

Jana B.

"Thank you Evan for your training. In less than one year, I met my fiancé online!"

I learned so much from Evan’s training and FOCUS Coaching… I was passionate about meeting someone who respected me, honored me, and really loved me…just for me. And, I wanted to feel the same about him. I’m thrilled to say that I found that man.

Rachel E.

"Evan, you’re amazing. You’re changing a little corner of the world in a very special way."

The thing that I most love about Dan is that I can be myself around him. At 52 years old, I’ve never felt that way with any man I’ve dated… I believe that it’s just a matter of time before all of you beautiful women on here find someone special. Don’t give up!

Maria N.

"Dale and I have been together for two and a half years and will be married in 3 months."

You provide a reality check and remind me that everyone has doubts and there is no one "normal" response to love and commitment. I think your insight and perspective is incredibly accurate - you seem to understand the plight/perspective of the working, successful urban woman over 30.